JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.The present miscellaneous petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Criminal Revision No. 54/2007 filed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the Revisional Court set aside the order dated 18.4.2006 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 453 I.P.C. against the respondent No. 2 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jayal, District Nagaur in Criminal Case No. 51/2006. 2. The petitioner is the complainant in the case and he has approached this Court by way of this miscellaneous petition seeking a direction for restoration of the order taking cognizance against the respondent No. 2. 3. Assailing the order of the revisional Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of taking cognizance, only a formation of opinion regarding existence of prima facie case is required. He submits that the learned Magistrate, after perusing the final report, has formed the opinion that there is existence of prima facie case for proceeding against the accused and as such the cognizance was taken against the accused -respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 453 I.P.C. and the Revisional Court should not have interfered in the well-reasoned order of the learned Magistrate. 4. I have perused the impugned order. From a perusal of the impugned order of the revisional Court, he becomes apparent that the revisional Court has allowed the revision on the ground that the learned Magistrate, before taking cognizance, did not consider the grounds given by the police in arriving at a conclusion that no case was made out against the accused. In the opinion of this Court, in a case where final report is filed by the police after investigation, it is obligatory for the learned Magistrate to deal with the reasons given by the police in arriving at a conclusion that no prima facie case is made out against the accused. 5. Accordingly, the revisional Court was perfectly justified in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the reasons given in the final report had not been considered. No interference in called for in the impugned order of the revisional Court. 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition, being bereft of force, is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******